Slashdot Mirror
Piracy Stats Don't Add Up
arenam writes to tell us Australian IT is reporting that a recent briefing for the Attorney-General's Department prepared by the Australian Institute of Criminology draws certain piracy statistics into question. From the article: "The draft of the institute's intellectual property crime report, sighted by The Australian shows that copyright owners 'failed to explain' how they reached financial loss statistics used in lobbying activities and court cases. Figures for 2005 from the global Business Software Association showing $361 million a year of lost sales in Australia are 'unverified and epistemologically unreliable,' the report says."
Figures for 2005 from the global Business Software Association showing $361 million a year of lost sales in Australia are 'unverified and epistemologically unreliable,' the report says.
In other news, the sky outside appears to be a "blue" color, and when dropped, most objects behave in a "falling" manner.
Push Button, Receive Bacon
I chuckled at the quote in the article:
"Some industry groups were reluctant to work with researchers, because of concern about data leaking to competitors."
All I could think of was..."Ha..ha...we have more pirates then YOU DO!"
Seriously what kind of "data" could piracy statistics be used by the competition?
It's how much they pay politician to pass laws in their favor and losy tech firms to invent crappy DRMs, maybe that's where the 361M$ comes from.
Of course they dont want to share how they come up with their data. They know that simply equating downloads to lost sales is not an accurate prediction.
I can't see these stats making any difference. The recording industry is highly unlikely to start making apologies for using bad data, and are going to use the best numbers they can come up with, accurate or not.
If the author of the article wants to be taken seriously, he may want to do more than a basic spell check. I would think strong written skills would be reasonably important as a journalist. Perhaps not.
I was told that I could listen to the radio at a reasonable volume from nine to eleven...
What difference does it make ? You know you are going bankrupt anyway because people aren't interested in CD's anymore.
Who cares about CD's when you only listen to music on your computer, portable MP3 player, or cellphone ? You can blame it on piracy all you want, but it's not going to change a thing; if you don't adapt to the market you have no chance to survive.
It happened to other markets before, think about photo labs & photo films vendors, they are extincting as well because people are only interested into digicams now. The same is happening with music, CD is an outdated format and thinking you could still make a living out of selling CDs in 10+ years is just foolish - even if piracy were to stop.
That comment seems reasonable to me. Assuming the 2000 PCs sold was a fairly random sample (as opposed to, say, some guy selling them in the lobby of some Linux conference or something), and that none of them came with Windows (old or new) installed, only having 100 licenses purchases for that bundle almost certainly does point to piracy. An OS with around 90% desktop market share that only sells enough licenses to account for 5% of computers would be a colossal statistical anomaly without some explanation, and in this case piracy seems a reasonable one. It becomes less reasonable if they claimed that there were 1900 copies pirated because it fails to account for other OS choices that may have be used.
The real problem is with things like, "1700 copies of XP were pirated -- at $200 a copy, we've lost $340,000!!!" Because that's just bunk. Most of the people who pirated XP would never have paid for it, so it is not a lost sale.
That is what the music industry is doing. In fact they are worse, because I'm fairly certain they're going "1700 songs were pirated -- at $12 a CD..." despite the fact that there may be multiple songs on a CD downloaded, etc.
"What difference does it make ? You know you are going bankrupt anyway because people aren't interested in CD's anymore."
5 9305
Psst, hey buddy, the post in question is plagiarized and it's 4 years old.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=77984&cid=692
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/10/2/103735/27
YHBT.
HTH.
--
BMO
See, that's where RIAA and company get their statistics - they equate every posting of that to one bankrupt CD store.
This is a sig. It is appended to the end of comments I post.
I don't buy the general arguments that a pirated application worth $100 is a $100 loss. Many of those who pirate software are usually not in so much need of it, that they are willing to pay for it if pirating is no alternative.
Additionally, one must consider the fact that if an application is popular among pirates, it is also likely to sell more copies of its software, simply because more people spread the word about this particular software.
Last but not least, some people do buy software only after using it for some time. A perfect example is Photoshop. It's a typical application that requires a lot of time to learn and costs too much to just "check out" (and I'm aware of the trial version). Some of the graphics artists who find out that this really is a useful and valuable tool, may also purchase the application. So for starters, they help spread the word of Photoshop and they also become potential buyers.
Full Tilt
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=define%3A+episte mological
:)
You're welcome
"And then I visited Wikipedia
Identity infringement is NOT theft, you still have your identity!!! Calling it "identity theft" is playing right into the hands of giant corperashuns.
Election infringement is NOT theft, you still have your election after all!!! Calling this a "stolen" election is playing right into the hands of giant corperashuns.
Service infringement is NOT theft, you still have your services after all!!! Calling it "theft of services" is playing right into the hands of giant corperashuns.
Sincerely yours,
Brickheaded Literalist
Perhaps the most suitable punishment for lying lobbyists (is there another kind?) would be to be beaten over the head with philosophy textbooks until they coluld tell their episteme from their noesis.
Pining for the fjords
That's not even taking into account site licences. Any computer I have ever bought on behalf of the university I worked for was purchased without an operating system. The university has an academic site licence for Windows, and students can get a legit copy for free as well. Why then would I shell out $200 for the convenience of having Windows preinstalled?
But man does that have the potential to screw up the piracy stats!
"Live as if you'll die tomorrow." Ridiculous. You could die later today.
Rest assured that if the RIAA or MPAA were to catch fire today, I would not waste any bodily fluids trying to extinguish the flames.
However, please do not consider yourself as some kind of "Robin Hood" type figure purely because you "fight the establishment" and copy CDs. Morons like you give morons like the **AA the justification they feel they need to restrict what I, an honest discerning music lover, can and cannot do with the music I buy.
If you *REALLY* care about the law, crime and your rights, you don't copy *AND* don't buy the products. You take the time, like me, to research what you plan to buy and decide for yourself if it is worth the money or not. Then you go find the cheapest retailer and buy the stuff you know will be worth the money.
No, you're not a criminal in the same way a murderer or rapist would be, but you are still just a common thief. So stop with the "Jolly Roger Bottle Of Rum Pirate" glamourising and get used to it.
Kindest Regards
An Honest Person
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Windows has always been competing with older versions of windows. I have a legitimate copy of Windows XP. If I buy a new machine, I'm not going to pay the extra for Vista. I'll just install XP on the new one and if I feel like being legitimate, I'll wipe the old one and install Linux on it.
No piracy. No lost sales.
No way windows would have 90%+ market share if not gor the EasyPirate(TM) feature.
I've never spent anywhere near $1000 for a piece of software but, if I was going to, I'd probably insist on a demonstration and something to evaluate first; and if I didn't get those things, then I just wouldn't buy it and tell the producer why I wasn't buying it.
Ultimately, it's the consumer who should dictate the way things should be, not the producer. Blame the lilly-livered, weak-minded consumers who have allowed software companies to get away with acting in this fashion up until now - and the thieves who have given them the justification to act that way.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
If pirates didn't exist, **AA would have to invent them. Piracy is a convenient justification for **AA creating ways to control your media, definitely. If it didn't exist, they'd find a different justification. Your approach would work if sufficient numbers of people followed it (and I'm talking regular buyers, not pirates - after all pirates are already not buying, so not pirating as well wouldn't be any more of an economic burden to the **AA's). Unfortunately that's unlikely to ever happen, instead the masses will just blithely accept the gradual loss of usage rights. You might not agree with piracy, but at least it's a hot topic issue and brings this loss of rights somewhat more into the limelight.
Did they check their ass? That's usually where these statistics are pulled out of.
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
Your busines shouldn't be selling music CDs
Your busines should be making people entertained by music
Concentrate on the client, not the product!
``It's how much they pay politician to pass laws in their favor''
Favor? These laws make it illegal for me to play DVDs I buy if they use CSS. Obviously, this means I won't buy these DVDs. I don't know how that works in the copyright holders' favor...
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
[RIAA representative puts left pinky next to corner of mouth] This year we will lose... 100 BILLION DOLLARS !
Let's discuss the real issues, shall we?
- When A pirates software X and B pays for it, the producer still loses even if A never intended to pay for it, as the perceived value of the software is less. Consider the situation where you were the only person in the world who bought the latest music CD and everybody else got the same music by pirating it. Proof of ownership? Hell no - you feel like a sucker, because, in fact, the situation has made you one.
- As is always brought up here in slashdot in other contexts - there's no need to pirate any given piece of software, as there are free alternatives out there. so, even if you see nothing wrong with, say, creating unlicenced drugs to save lives, the fact is that in this case there simply is no analogue. even if there were no OSS, you'd be hard pressed to suggest that anybody NEEDS software.
- Software patents may well be evil. There may well be problems in the IP regime. You may be against the idea that copyright is continuously extended. However, none of this has anything to do with the present discussion of piracy of software, most of which is typically under five years old.
Until the slashdot crowd, collectively (and I'm not saying that all slashdotters think alike, but you'd be just throwing more smoke and mirrors if you were to not believe that there weren't some rather commonly held views here along the lines I am suggesting and that those views have widely seen to be synonymous with a general 'slashdot look on life'), is willing to face up to the real issues instead of throwing up more kneejerk smoke and mirrors, it will continue to be an intellectually dishonest sideshow.Granted ... but you're neglecting the fact that if XP was not "piratable", most people would have likely stuck with their prior version of Windows, not ran out and bought an upgrade.
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
At least, not in the limited context of this article. Sure, in the wider scope of the whole debate - whether the RIAA should be fighting this war on piracy or not - demands at least some consideration of where along the moral line downloading copyrighted materials lies.
/. hivemind.
In reference to this specific article, however, the salient points would appear to be:
1) The RIAA are using deceit and subterfuge as weapons.
2) A body that has influence on policy decisions noticed.
This naturally hurts the RIAA, but to what degree, and for how long, remains to be seen, and might be a more fruitful use of the
[ cruise / casual-tempest.net / xenogamous.com / transference.org / quantam sufficit ]
1. I have a legit copy of Windows XP, but I dont think it is OEM
2. I have the same box that I originally installed XP on. Although all of the actual bits that make up the PC have been replaced at least once. --- Sort of a "Same broom, several different handles, several different heads" kinda thing.
I really dont think I have violated their license, as it had no connection to a specific PC and I only ever have had it installed on one PC, despite that PC changing.
I could easily buy a new PC and then install that copy onto the new box, as long a I wiped the old one I haven't pirated XP, but that would be counted as a pirated copy using the "PC brought with no copy of XP" argument.
Statistics used by any arm of the government should not be produced by those who have a vested interest in a particular result of that report. Statistics are lies when they aren't based on facts.
If this were really happening, what would you think?
...unless you say "YARR!" while you're doing it.
Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
The copyright advocates lose a lot of respect, in my eyes, when they pushed to have copyrights extended to a ridiculous 75 (+20) years. Somehow they feel they should have a lock on culture for generations. Disney of course pushed for this just around the time they're copyrights were going to end. Nothing sleazy about that! Everything created has a piece of something someone did before them in it. Nothing is 100% original yet companies like Disney feel they can use the ideas of others and then deny use of their result in turn. Too bad the Brothers Grimm couldn't copyright their work for a few hundred years, Disney would never have gotten started.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
How many Ferraris do you expect to aquire from being a programmer, and in how long ? How many multi-million dollar mansions do you expect to own from the proceeds of programming ?
Do you think you or anybody else is really worth that much more than anybody else, that they receive these things by governmental fief ? Do you really think that it is just and right, that for just a few years work, you can afford to retire and never have to worry about income ever again ?
How much is enough for you ?
and don't give me crap about "the market". It's just greed, pure and simple.
Always been the American way though, at the expense of your fellow countrymen and the truth, and other less fortunate lives. Ironic really from such a quasi-religeous society, that your main idol of worship is Mammon.
Does a farmer get paid every time his grain is used in a product - oh, that's right, he has to grow some more.
Does a house builder get paid every time someone walks into a house - oh, he has to build more.
Do car manufacturers get paid every time you start your engine - no, they have to make more.
Do doctors get paid every time you take a breath - That's right, they have to actually earn their income.
Apparently only persons in the media deserve a free and unfettered income for life from a few dubious contributions to society.
Real art is priceless, the rest is worthless.
Now don't make the mistake of presuming that I believe people shouldn't be allowed to try and get rich by their own efforts. I just object to government mandated gravy trains. Otherwise a car maker could copyright the wheel, doctors could copyright surgery, a house builder could copyright the brick, and a farmer could copyright grain. Starting to blur the line with patents here, but have you heard of Monsanto ?